Taxes Are Not A Duty

Originally posted by Mr Sunchine

It is the socialist that lives in a lala land where they think everyone should have everythign provided to them by the government and then expects everyone to work as hard as possible to end up with the same reward as the laziest in the group. Socialists think someone will invest to create jobs and new businesses just so they can get all their profits taken away in the form of taxes. Now that is delusional for you.

Oops, seems like someone skipped school the day they were teaching the difference between socialist democracy and communism...

Oh well...I hear its now fair to compare republicanism to Nazi styled facism...I mean, if we are going to corrupt things beyond any recognition for simple partisan politics.

Sorry, you can take your westboro baptist church congressmen and take a walk.

reply to post by TheWalkingFox


In a free market, corporations that engage in evil would not make a lot of profits.

In fact, once the market finds out a corporation is engaged in fraud, they typically stop doing business with them rapidly.

The people who live in a delusional dream world are socialists that think social justice comes at the point of a gun.

Originally posted by Mr Sunchine
reply to post by EarthCitizen07

 

LMAO, I don't know anything about anarchists other than they are a bunch of pot smokers, but Libertarian/Conservatives don't live in lala land like you suggest.

It is the socialist that lives in a lala land where they think everyone should have everythign provided to them by the government and then expects everyone to work as hard as possible to end up with the same reward as the laziest in the group. Socialists think someone will invest to create jobs and new businesses just so they can get all their profits taken away in the form of taxes. Now that is delusional for you.

So only the working people should pay taxes? Are they suckers or what?

You got a distorted view my friend or your not good with words, I am not sure which is true.

Originally posted by EarthCitizen07

So only the working people should pay taxes? Are they suckers or what?

You got a distorted view my friend or your not good with words, I am not sure which is true.

Right now, only working people pay taxes.

Originally posted by 1xion325alpha
How would you consider roads, rubbish collection, park upkeep, community projects ect to continue to run and be funded without taxes? Sure some taxes are not necessary, well a lot of them arnt, but a lot of them are.

No no my friend. What gets most people is the fact that we are taxed on our income, we're taxed on our property, we're taxed when we sell property, we're taxed when we purchase property, then we're taxed for the luxury of owning said property annually. It's the double and triple dipping that most of us see as absurd.

Last week here we had a sink hole in the road. They paid a private company half a million dollars to fix the hole. It was completed in less than 2 days. What we're tired of is the spoiled brat syndrome we are seeing "it's not my money, I don't care how much it costs."

What it has boiled down to is our states and federal government have ALWAYS thought that any problem, no matter how large or small, is solved by throwing more money at it. We're taxed federally, taxed by the state, then taxed by the county, then taxed by the city.

Our federal taxes go toward agendas that 80+% of people polled are against. Our state taxes go to bribe corporations into relocating here with the promise that our state has the fewest employee protection laws. County taxes go to roads (which we pay for through registration and tag fees) and police (even though I'm SURE they make more than enough through fines), and I still haven't figured out what the damn city tax goes to.

TPTB have gotten bold. They don't hide these things anymore. Perhaps they feel they have a strong enough hold to where they don't need to hide all the bureaucratic BS from us anymore, or perhaps they have just run out of rugs to sweep it under.

Originally posted by mnemeth1
reply to post by TheWalkingFox

 

In a free market, corporations that engage in evil would not make a lot of profits.

I'm sorry, you're in the real world. Did you perhaps mean to enter Narnia? Middle-Earth? Fantasy Wonderlands are three doors down and to the left; Just climb into the wardrobe until you hit snow.

Perhaps you should study the implementation of Chicago-School economics in various corners of the globe, and the results they have. It's quite interesting how predictable the downfall of a nation is once "Free Market reforms" are implemented. You can set your watch by it.

In fact, once the market finds out a corporation is engaged in fraud, they typically stop doing business with them rapidly.

"Fraud" is defined by defrauding your investors. if you're defrauding your workers, your investors could care less. if you're engaging in environmentally damaging practices, your investors could care less. So long as you are giving your investors a profit, then the truth is they will not give a damn what you do, and you will continue business as usual.

It's a fact of life now, and it will only increase in the purely free market - freedom is, in the marketplace, a total lack of any restraints on the profit motive. If it turns a profit, it's acceptable.

Let me guess; You took an economics course in college, but haven't really engaged yourself in the business world to any great degree, either as a manager or an employee, have you?

The people who live in a delusional dream world are socialists that think social justice comes at the point of a gun.

When Martin Luther King took the podium to preach for equal rights in the 60's, he did so with over five million supremely pissed black Americans standing behind him. When Mohandas Gandhi marched to the sea, and spoke of ahisma and nonviolent resistance, his words were spoken to the British who could see six hundred million armed and irate Indians in the land the British were occupying. When the GLBT communities across the nation sought fair treatment, they were backed by the Stonewall riots, the Lavender panthers, and other such events and organizations. When Nelson Mandela sought reconciliation with the Apartheid government of South Africa, the South Africans saw a long throng of Xhosa and Ndebele and Zulu standing behind him, just waiting for an excuse. When AIM sought justice for the crimes of the BIA and its goons in the Black Hills, they did so with their fists and with bullets, and brought national attention to the wrongs on the reservation.

When the hippies protested Vietnam, there were no angry people they were holding back. There was only pure nonviolence. The war didn't stop until the treasury found it to be cost-ineffective. The hippies failed in their quest for social justice.

You, my friend, are the one who are operating under a delusion. A quest for social justice is the product of social injustice and where there is social injustice, there is someone who holds power over you. A man who holds power over you isn't going to be swayed by your calm complaints and silent protests. He's going to be swayed by a demonstration that you are more powerful than he is, and just as willing ot use his tactics unless you get your justice.

You've got some deep lessons about the world you need to learn, kid. Idealism is nice for writing children's books, but it's rather useless when you try to apply it to the way the world actually works.

reply to post by TheWalkingFox


So you think society's problems are best solved through violence.

You must support the actions of Joe Stack, since you seem to be in agreement with him on at least that point.



[edit on 23-2-2010 by mnemeth1]

Originally posted by mnemeth1
reply to post by EarthCitizen07

 

In a free market, private banks would not be the sole issuers of currency.

Thing is they SHOULD NOT issue currency at all. If government allows private banks that power then everyone will get screwed, much like now.

Government issues/prints money, thats good because everyone is below government and they get the respect they deserve. Government=God!

Now go ahead and hate me all you like but I speak wisdom and you speak trash.

reply to post by EarthCitizen07


The government used to mint currency, then they handed monopoly control over the money supply to a private cartel of banks.

If there was no monopoly control over the money supply, no one bank could screw the public.

Doesn't matter if government runs the monopoly, or a private cartel of banks run it, a monopoly is a monopoly and it will lead to corruption.

Only government can maintain a monopoly.

Just to get an idea how dangerous allowing private banks issuing authority is consider our founding fathers wise words....

Thomas Jefferson
Thomas Jefferson was adamantly opposed to the idea of a privately owned federal bank and said "I sincerely believe the banking institutions having the issuing power of money are more dangerous to liberty than standing armies".

In 1811, under President James Madison, Vice President George Clinton broke the tied vote in congress to cast the bankers out refusing to renew the charter for the bankers. Unfortunatly it was President Madison who proposed a second United States privately owned Central bank and it came into existence in 1816

However, in 1836 President Jackson, overriding Congress, closed it commenting, "The bold effort the present bank had made to control the government are but premonitions of the fate that await the American people should they be deluded into a perpetuation of this institution or the establishment of another like it." (we now have another one like it)

Andrew Jackson also said, when speaking to the bankers: "You are a den of vipers and thieves. I intend to rout you out, and by the eternal God I will rout you out."

Martin Van Buren
When speaking to his closest friend, Martin Van Buren, Jackson said, "The bank, is trying to kill me, but I will kill it!" (and he did)

The first two Federal Reserve Systems lasted about 20 years each and we are now almost a hundred years into the third one.

Woodrow Wilson
The year is now 1913, the year after Woodrow Wilson was elected president of the United States. Prior to his election he needed financial support to pay for his campaign, so he reluctantly agreed, that if elected, he would sign the Federal Reserve Act, in return for that financial support.

In December 1913 while many members of Congress were home for Christmas, the Federal Reserve Act was rammed through Congress and was later signed by President Wilson. At a later date, Wilson admitted with remorse, when referring to the Fed."I have unwittingly ruined my country".

[edit on 23-2-2010 by EarthCitizen07]

Originally posted by mnemeth1
reply to post by TheWalkingFox

 

So you think society's problems are best solved through violence.

You must support the actions of Joe Stack, since you seem to be in agreement with him on at least that point.

[edit on 23-2-2010 by mnemeth1]

I think you failed to read more than you wanted to read, and chose to enter combat with a strawman of your choosing.

Social problems are not best solved through violence. However the threat of violence has, with great regularity, been the one and only incentive to get those in power to deliver the goods. Violence exists as an "or else" option - if there is no "or else" then you're not negotiating, you're simply begging.

Of course, you're starting on the assumption that taxation is violent. Strangely it's no more violent than your solution. The government says "Pay taxes or go to jail", the libertarian says "pay industry or starve to death in your own filth" - passive violence is still violence.

[edit on 23-2-2010 by TheWalkingFox]

reply to post by EarthCitizen07


Jefferson was opposed to a national bank acting as a monopoly banking interest on government debt.

Banks in Jefferson's time did not have monopoly control over the money supply. And when the US mint came on line, it simply acted as a stamping press for gold and silver brought to it by the public.

There was no banking monopoly on money.



[edit on 23-2-2010 by mnemeth1]

reply to post by TheWalkingFox


Again, you advocate violence as a means of solving societal problems.

And in the same breath, you denounce those who seek to end violence against the innocent.

Socialism requires guns.

Without guns, socialism fails.

reply to post by TheWalkingFox


I am under no delusion that business owners are altruistic. I am however under the reality that if a company does not live up to its customers expectatons long enough it will soon be out of business. This is much different than any government agency. Do you think the BMV would still be in business or the post office without government support?

Originally posted by mnemeth1
reply to post by TheWalkingFox

 

Again, you advocate violence as a means of solving societal problems.

And in the same breath, you denounce those who seek to end violence against the innocent.

Socialism requires guns.

Without guns, socialism fails.

Does it hurt to be that full of crap? Have you considered kaopectate? I hear it can clear out the major pipes in a few hours, you might want to give it a shot.

I do not advocate violence. I recognize that it has a place on the negotiating table, and that historically the threat of using it has been far more effective than promises to never use it. There's a grand canyon of difference there, but by now I don't expect you to figure it out. Or perhaps you do realize this, and as someone who is most assuredly against the concept of social justice (or any form of Justice) you're simply making a poor attempt to undercut.

if socialism requires guns, then libertarianism requires private armies full of 'em. because without those armies, you've got mad max.

[edit on 23-2-2010 by TheWalkingFox]

reply to post by TheWalkingFox


Ad homs have never hurt me in an argument before and they aren't going to do it now.

You seem like an angry violent man.

Originally posted by EarthCitizen07

Originally posted by Mr Sunchine
reply to post by EarthCitizen07

 

LMAO, I don't know anything about anarchists other than they are a bunch of pot smokers, but Libertarian/Conservatives don't live in lala land like you suggest.

It is the socialist that lives in a lala land where they think everyone should have everythign provided to them by the government and then expects everyone to work as hard as possible to end up with the same reward as the laziest in the group. Socialists think someone will invest to create jobs and new businesses just so they can get all their profits taken away in the form of taxes. Now that is delusional for you.

So only the working people should pay taxes? Are they suckers or what?

You got a distorted view my friend or your not good with words, I am not sure which is true.

Not sure where you are going with this because you don't make a damn bit of sense to me. However, only working people and companies do pay taxes that actually net a "profit" for the government. People living on entititlements and government workers produce a net "loss" for the government. If you cannot figure that out in under five minutes maybe you should retake basic math.

Originally posted by mnemeth1
reply to post by EarthCitizen07

 

Jefferson was opposed to a national bank acting as a monopoly banking interest on government debt.

No he was opposed to a private central bank!

Henry Ford once said "It is well enough that people of the nation do not understand our banking and monetary system, for if they did, I believe there would be a revolution before tomorrow morning".

According to the two volume work by Bill Benson and Red Beckman , "The Law That Never Was" the 16th amendment, which created the IRS, was never properly ratified, not even by one state! These gentlemen traveled the then 48 states to verify that fact. So in a very real sense the income tax isn't legal, as many have proclaimed, but try not paying it and see how far you get before the Feds come after you and confiscate everything you own.

In the nearly 100 years of the existence of the Fed, it has NEVER been audited and they don't pay income tax on the billions of dollars they take from us.

Does anyone think that if Indians had guns before the Europeans had arrived, that their society would have devolved into Mad Max?

No police, no central government, no real laws to speak of.

Clearly Indians should have been roving the country side in armored vehicles shooting each other for buffalo and gasoline.

Originally posted by mnemeth1
reply to post by TheWalkingFox

 

Ad homs have never hurt me in an argument before and they aren't going to do it now.

You seem like an angry violent man.

It's only an ad hominem if it's untrue. I'm simply informing you that you are full of it, and a laxative would be beneficial. I don't suppose you expected a kinder, more civil way of saying this, after you've spent your last several posts lying and distorting what I'm saying into something you personally find easier to argue against?

A man jousting his own straw men has no place to cry foul and accuse others of logical fallacies.

Perhaps when I get home from work, I'll find that you've gone back, read my posts, and have actually found it within your abilities to respond to what I've actually said, rather than what you wish I had said.

I won't be banking on it.